Appeal No. 96-3128
Application 08/246,723
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the brief that
Peppers fails to teach the Appellant's claimed limitations as
required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellant
argues on
pages 13 through 17 of the brief that Peppers does not
disclose each optical correlation operation means only
detecting a portion of the optical pattern. Appellant points
out that Peppers discloses a device in which the entire
optical pattern is outputted to each correlation means 3a, 6a
and 7a as shown in Peppers' Figure 1. This point is further
emphasized in the reply brief.
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner argues that Peppers
teaches correlation means which receives a portion of an image
pattern displayed. In particular, the Examiner directs our
attention to column 1, lines 6-13.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007